That aside.. I actually like the idea of more playoff games. But only if they expand the league by at least 2 more teams (preferably 4)

I didn't think of that earlier, but that's the only way I could possibly think of being okay with more playoff games. But if you're adding new teams, then the concern is if you can field enough quality teams, or if you're going to have a perennial expansion flop team like Jacksonville. Also, I'm afraid that more teams = A team in London which is a colossally bad idea.

The playoff amount of teams.The amount of NFL teams.The lack of a team oversea's.

All are FINE. Quit trying to muck it up!

Eliminate some of the rules. Make them more black/white. Make players watch a video of players who have been retired for more than a decade and sign a waiver of some sort acknowledging they know the dangers of playing in the NFL.

I didn't think of that earlier, but that's the only way I could possibly think of being okay with more playoff games. But if you're adding new teams, then the concern is if you can field enough quality teams, or if you're going to have a perennial expansion flop team like Jacksonville. Also, I'm afraid that more teams = A team in London which is a colossally bad idea.

More teams is more watering down of the quality of players.

The only way in my opinion he will extend the playoffs is by making it 14 teams. 7 from each conference (being 4 division winners and 3 WC's) with only the #1 seed from each conference getting a bye week. So there would be 3 wc games in each conference on Saturday and Sunday with he kick of times like a normal Sunday.

And the idea of a London franchise is impractable.

Believe me, I'm from the UK and post on the NFLUK forum, and the vast majority of posters are against a UK franchise. We are very happy (scratch that ecstatic)with 2 games a season being played at Wembley from next year but we are football fans already and all have our teams in the NFL who we support with a passion and would not switch allegiance to another team just because it was based in the UK.

As I have posted in the past the time zone is the biggest obstacle.

All home games would have to be 6PM (UK time) kick offs which is 1PM EST and 9AM PCT. A london team could never host a late afternoon game (9:25PM kick off) as the game wouldn't finish until nearly 1AM UK time. so a Sunday Night, Monday night home game is out of the question as they would kick off at 1:20AM UK time which is totally out of the question.

And this talk of a Superbowl in the UK is just that "Talk".......

The game would have to kick off 7PM UK time at latest which is 10AM PCT. With all the hoopla that goes with the big game i.e. TV build up pre match entertainment etc the TV programming on the West coast would be starting at 5AM in the morning.

This your game USA we just happen to love it and accept the times of kick offs.

Maybe as has been said already Goodell is just putting this out there to gauge fan reaction so he can go to the owners and tell them it's a no go.

My opinion, is there is more than enough college talent for a couple more teams across the league. The exception might be the upper echelon QB's, but that really applies to today's game as it is. So what is two more teams with mediocre QB's, the Bears have won for a couple decades with average to below average QB's. So have the Ravens.

I believe there are many young players that exit the league that could be successful in the right situation for their talents.

I don't believe talent is the limiting factor, I believe that it is drawing local fan interest is the issue. Building a stadium is a huge undertaking, then trying the generate and fill those stadiums without a built in tradition is the limiting factor.

Look no further than Jacksonville, Tampa, San Diego.. etc. Weekly they are fighting blackouts and most of the time, upside down yet in investments in the stadium itself. Even established teams like Indy are struggling to recapture public funding money for stadium costs. Buffalo is playing a couple home games a year in Toronto partially because of waning fan interest.

So why in God's green earth would you want to add more teams while we have franchises struggling already.

I think the NFL is too aggressively trying to force growth in place of it naturally taking place with demand for the product.

My opinion, is there is more than enough college talent for a couple more teams across the league. The exception might be the upper echelon QB's, but that really applies to today's game as it is. So what is two more teams with mediocre QB's, the Bears have won for a couple decades with average to below average QB's. So have the Ravens.

I believe there are many young players that exit the league that could be successful in the right situation for their talents. I don't believe talent is the limiting factor, I believe that it is drawing local fan interest is the issue. Building a stadium is a huge undertaking, then trying the generate and fill those stadiums without a built in tradition is the limiting factor.

Look no further than Jacksonville, Tampa, San Diego.. etc. Weekly they are fighting blackouts and most of the time, upside down yet in investments in the stadium itself. Even established teams like Indy are struggling to recapture public funding money for stadium costs. Buffalo is playing a couple home games a year in Toronto partially because of waning fan interest.

So why in God's green earth would you want to add more teams while we have franchises struggling already.

I think the NFL is too aggressively trying to force growth in place of it naturally taking place with demand for the product.

The bolded is absolutely correct. There are 120 something D1 college football teams. If the NFL expanded drastically and added 4 more teams, there still would be FAR enough talent to go around. I believe there are dozens of extremely high talent that gets lost at the wayside of the NFL because of early injuries/poor college coaching/poor college academics. Expanding the NFL by 4 teams would only force teams to find for those hidden gems even more so.

93z's spot on in that the crimp in the hourglass is the local fan interest and the money to be found to operate the new teams. Certainly there are markets for many more NFL teams.. But unless the new ownership wants to build stadiums that are 50k seats or less, those markets won't be tapped, IMO. The Dakotas come to mind (and I hope they never get a franchise).

I agree with Shawn on his last sentence, too. Well, the second part of it. I think the NFL can be aggressive in expansion, but cut back the stadium capacities and find markets that will be loyal (again, there are plenty). Sometimes those markets are found in the oddest of places (Baltimore is one of them, IMO. I would have never thought that city/market could have handled a NFL team before the Browns moved there. History proved me wrong.)

I know. The owners think just because they paid for a franchise that means that they can do whatever they want to the game. How can these people who have obviously been incredibly successful in business be so stupid when it comes to what makes football popular? Thus profitable. Sooner or later they will kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs. Then they will wonder what happened.

The bolded is absolutely correct. There are 120 something D1 college football teams. If the NFL expanded drastically and added 4 more teams, there still would be FAR enough talent to go around.

Disagree. The league can't even put out 32 starting caliber quarterbacks as it is. Expansion will just lead to more teams like the Jags, who one, can't even fill half a stadium, and two can't find a QB or the rest of the personnel to field a decent team.

If the NFL goes to 16 playoff teams, i'd stop watching. I mean, why even bother with the regular season? Just put ALL teams into a one game playoff, and whoever is there at the end gets the Lombardi trophy.

That's the reason i don't even watch the NBA anymore. A sub .500 team gets in, and it takes months for the so called "playoffs" to be over. It drags on and on, and i lose interest right away.

Disagree. The league can't even put out 32 starting caliber quarterbacks as it is. Expansion will just lead to more teams like the Jags, who one, can't even fill half a stadium, and two can't find a QB or the rest of the personnel to field a decent team.

You missed my point. Talent gets left at the wayside in the current configuration. Teams will be forced dig in those waysides. Also, who said that EVERY team needs a quality QB? You think every 120+ D1 college team has a quality QB? Why does every team need a quality/starting QB but not a quality/starting WR or RB or any other position?

And I already addressed the point of stadiums not filling up. Jacksonville is likely a poor market, but it would stand to fill up if the environment was better.

Like I mentioned, they should discuss it with the PA before taking it public.

&quot said:

The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not address the topic. Which means, as we explained during Sunday’s edition of Football Night in America, that the NFL would have to bargain with the NFL Players Association in order to obtain the ability to add two or four playoff teams.

Like I mentioned, they should discuss it with the PA before taking it public.

I believe they are mistaken. The CBA does address playoffs. It addresses scheduling, and it addresses how they can practice during the playoffs, it addresses additional pay for the playoffs. If they simply add more teams, they are not adding anything that would not be covered by the CBA. If they wanted to add another round to the playoffs, I would agree, but they would not be. It would still be Wild Card, Divisional, Conference and SB. All it would do is make 4 more teams eligible for the extra pay that is already negotiated.

I believe they are mistaken. The CBA does address playoffs. It addresses scheduling, and it addresses how they can practice during the playoffs, it addresses additional pay for the playoffs. If they simply add more teams, they are not adding anything that would not be covered by the CBA. If they wanted to add another round to the playoffs, I would agree, but they would not be. It would still be Wild Card, Divisional, Conference and SB. All it would do is make 4 more teams eligible for the extra pay that is already negotiated.

No, they are correct as I understand the CBA, any additional games added to the players, regardless of timing, would result in the PA having to sign off. The CBA covers x amount of games within the season, any additional games would have to be vetted with the PA and players.

I don't think the players themselves would be against an additional teams... but they are for sure going to get some concessions back from the league to add another revenue stream to the owners and increase their injury risk.

No, they are correct as I understand the CBA, any additional games added to the players, regardless of timing, would result in the PA having to sign off. The CBA covers x amount of games within the season, any additional games would have to be vetted with the PA and players.

I don't think the players themselves would be against an additional teams... but they are for sure going to get some concessions back from the league to add another revenue stream to the owners and increase their injury risk.

I don't see that in the CBA, and I have read it. I've searched it for every reference to the playoffs. It never specifies 12 teams or how the playoff teams are determined or how seating is done. Or who has home field and who travels.

But it does specify how players will be payed for playing in Wildcard games or all playoff games. Practice limitations. I just don't see grounds where additional wildcard teams breaches or is outside of anything in or not in the CBA.

Section 4. Scope of Agreement:(a) This Agreement represents the complete understanding of the parties on all subjects covered herein, and there will be no change in the terms and conditions of this Agreement without mutual consent. Except as otherwise provided in Article 47, Section 6, on Union Security, the NFLPA and the NFL waive all rights to bargain with one another concerning any subject covered or not covered in this Agreement for the duration of this Agreement, including the provisions of the NFL Constitution and By-laws; provided, however, that if any proposed change in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws could significantly affect the terms and conditions of employment of NFL play-ers, then the NFL will give the NFLPA notice of and negotiate the proposed change in good faith.

Within the Bylaws, the postseason is defined as... the bylaws define all things like league year, roster rules, etc. Hence why they amended the bylaws this preseason for the IR with return designation and altering the roster limits.

Anyway.. Article XX of the bylaws defines the playoff seeding with # of teams and and the order in which they are seeded.

Quote:

20.1 The four Division Champions and the two Wild Card clubs (the two clubs with the best records other than the Division Champions) from each conference will participate in the postseason.

Later back in the CBA,

Quote:

ARTICLE 37 POSTSEASON PAYSection 1. System: A four-tiered (“wild card” game, division playoff game, conference championship and Super Bowl game) play-off system will be used and continued throughout the term of this Agreement.

So my friend, yes it is defined, governed and agreed upon by both the league and the NFLPA.

As i read the article and section what it says, as it pertains to the subject at hand. That the NFLPA would need to show that the league adding playoff teams, would significantly affect the terms and conditions of their employment.

It doesn't say that any change to the bylaws or nfl constitution has to go through the PA. Only if the change would significantly affect the terms.

And I don't see how they would establish significant change when the compensation and structure is already set.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.